The Liberals and the Land Problem in Britain

Published:Za PravduNo. 8, October 12, 1913.

      Signed:V. I..

      Published according to theZa Pravdutext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 19,

      pages439-442.Translated:The Late George HannaTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

OnSaturday, October 11 (September 28, O.S.), the British Liberal
Minister, Lloyd George, opened his “Land Campaign “in two “brilliant”
speeches delivered in the town of Bedford. Just as our Kit Kitych Guchkov
promised “to settle accounts” with the Russian privileged and
all-powerful landowners, so the British Liberal Minister promised to start
a campaign on the land question, to expose the land lords and appeal to the
people on the issue of a “radical” (Lloyd George is extremely radical!)
land reform.

TheLiberal press in Britain tried to give their leader’s campaign as
impressive an appearance as possible. Publicity, publicity at all costs! If
the speech is too long, let us publish a brief “summary” of it, let us
call it a land “charter”, let us embellish it in such a way as to conceal
the diplomatic subterfuges of the parliamentary huckster behind a long list
of reforms—a minimum wage, 100,000 cottages for the workers, and the
“compulsory alienation of the land at itsnet[!!] value to the
landlords”.

Inorder to show the readerhowthe Minister of the British
Liberal bourgeoisie carries on agitation among the people, we shall quote
several passages from Lloyd George’s Bedford speeches.

“Thereis no question more vital, ... than the question ...  of the
land!” exclaimed the speaker. “It enters into every thing—the food the
people eat, the water they drink, the houses they dwell in, the industries
upon which their livelihood depends.” And to whom does the land belong in
Britain? To a handful of rich people! One-third of all the land belongs to
members of the House of Lords. “Landlordism isthe greatest of all monopolies in this land.” The power of the landlords
is boundless. They may evict their tenants, and devastate the land worse
than an enemy would. “Now, I am not attacking the landlords either
individually or as a class,” the Minister took pains to declare, “but can
such a state of affairs be allowed to continue?”

Duringthe last few decades the agricultural population has declined
from over two million to one and a half million, while the number of
gamekeepers has increased from 9,000 to 23,000. There is no other country
in the world where there is so much uncultivated land and where the farmers
suffer so much from game bred by the rich for their amusement.

Thewealth of Britain is increasing at an astonishing rate. But what
about the farm labourers? Nine-tenths of them earn less than twenty
shillings and sixpence (about 10 rubles) per week, a sum which in
workhouses is considered to be barely sufficient to prevent an inmate from
starving. Sixty per cent of the farm labourers earn less than eighteen
shillings (about 9 rubles) per week.

TheConservatives propose that the land be purchased in small
holdings. “But him who talks about purchase,” thundered the British
Rodichev,[1]“I shall ask: atwhat price?”
(Laughter.)

Willnot the high price crush the small buyer? Will he not be crushed
by high rates? There is a Small Holdings Act which is supposed to provide
land for workers. Here is an example. The total rates and taxes on a plot
of land are assessed at £30 (nearly 270 rubles). This land is bought
and resold to poor people in small holdings. The price they pay turns out
to be £60!

Thedepopulation of rural England threatens to make our country
defenceless—without a strong peasantry there can be no strong army. Now,
can either a Russian or a British Liberal get along without playing on
crude nationalist and chauvinist sentiments?

“Thelandlords did not create the land.” exclaimed Lloyd George,
“the country must choose between the power of the landlords and the
welfare of the workers. We must act firmly and determinedly against
monopoly—and property in land is the greatest monopoly. The tenant farmer
mustobtain guarantees that he will not be evicted, or deprived of the fruits of
his energy and skill.” (A voice: “What is the remedy?”)  “We must act,
enough of timid attempts at half-measures. We must deal with it thoroughly,
we must do as businessmen do. It is no use tinkering and mending, we must
put the land monopoly under better control.

“Wemust secure a minimum wage for the labourer, shorten the working
day, give him a decent, comfortable cottage and a plot of land so that he
can grow a certain amount of produce for his family. We must secure for him
aladder of progressin order that the ‘enterprising’ labourer may
rise from the small allotment, the kitchen garden, to the small
holding. And the most enterprising might look forward to taking their
position as one of the substantial farmers in the community. You are
tempted with the charms of emigration to America and Australia. But we want
the British worker to find sustenance for himself, a free life and comfort
for himself and for his children right here, in England, in our own
country.”

Thunderousapplause.... And one can almost hear the isolated voices of
those in the audience who were not fooled (like the one who shouted: “What
is the remedy?”) saying: “He sings well; but will he do anything?”

Hesings well, this British Liberal Minister, this favourite of the
petty-bourgeois crowd, a past master in the art of breaking strikes by
brazen deception of the workers, the best servant of British capital, which
enslaves both the British workers and the 300 million population of
India. What power, however, induced this hardened politician, this lackey
of the money-bags, to make such “radical” speeches?

Thepower of the labour movement.

InBritain there is no conscripted army. The people cannot be
restrained by violence—they can be restrained only by deception. The
labour movement is growing irresistibly. The people’s attention must be
diverted, the masses must be “engaged” with high-sounding schemes for
reform, a pretence must be made of waging war on the Conservatives, sops
must be promised to prevent the masses from losing faith in the Liberals,
to ensure that they follow the industrial and financial capitalists like
sheep following shepherds.

Andthe promises of reform ... does not the English proverb say that
promises are like pie-crusts, made to be broken? Lloyd George makes
promises and the Liberal Cabinet as a whole will cut them to a fifth before
setting about their realisation. The Conservatives, in their turn, will
make afurthercut, the result being a tenth.

Thereformism of the British bourgeoisie is the clearest indication of
the growth of a deep-going revolutionary movement among the British working
class. No eloquent orator, no Liberal charlatan can stop this movement.

[1]Rodichev,F. M.—a landowner from Tver Gubernia, one of the
organisers and most active members of the Cadet Party.